Good afternoon,
After discussions with Matthew yesterday, we have decided that the
sprint should be held on one of the following ranges of dates.
* Fri 25th Sep to Sun 27th Sep
* Fri 2nd Oct to Sun 4th Oct
* Fri 9th Oct to Sun 11th Oct
* Fri 16th Oct to Sun 18th Oct
* Fri 23th Oct to Sun 25th Oct
* Fri 30th Oct to Sun 1st Nov
* Fri 6th Nov to Sun 8th Nov
* Fri 13th Nov to Sun 15th Nov
* Fri 20th Nov to Sun 22nd Nov
* Fri 27th Nov to Sun 29th Nov
To vote, please copy the above list, and reply WITHIN THE THREAD to me
either privately (if you don't want it public) or onlist and put one of
the following symbols next to every range:
+ (Available)
x (Unavailable)
- (Could be available)
For those who are not able to post to the list, please send me an email
(polarian(a)polarian.dev) and I will include your vote, please only vote
if you are interested in attending.
I will count the responses and pass them onto Matthew on Sunday 17th
May (1 week from now).
Note: Matthew is *NOT* MattJ aka Matthew Wild, we really need to
find a solution to the duplicate Matthews.
Happy voting!
Take care,
--
Polarian
Jabber/XMPP: polarian(a)icebound.dev
Hello,
I've started proxy voting via xmpp:memberbot@xmpp.org on the membership
applications listed here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q2_2026
We will hold a member meeting on June 4th to formally approve the voting
results.
The meeting particulars are:
Date: June 4th, 2026
Time: 19:00 UTC
Location: xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org
When you have problems with memberbot please contact my directly by
email or xmpp.
Thanks,
Alex
Hi folks,
Most of you are probably familiar with CVEs. They're like universal
bug numbers for security vulnerabilities. They make it much easier to
exchange information about security issues in software, if everyone
refers to the same vulnerability by the same number.
The CVE ecosystem isn't perfect, and has been a bit turbulent over
recent years. One cause of this is that the number of vulnerabilities
has been increasing for a long time, and the organization that used to
issue them became a bottleneck - it now delegates a lot of the work to
others.
One way it does this delegation is by working with "CVE Numbering
Authorities". Basically, organizations can register as a numbering
authority (CVE issuer) within a particular category of software.
Sometimes this can be a single project (the Linux kernel recently
became a CNA), but ideally it encompasses a range of related software.
Which leads to the obvious suggestion... I believe it would be
beneficial for the XSF to apply for CNA status, with the scope of
issuing CVEs for software within the XMPP ecosystem.
There are various benefits:
- The XSF is already a hub for XMPP software developers, making
discoverability and issuance easier for projects
- Response times may be faster (due to the narrow scope, the XSF will
naturally receive a far lower volume of CVE requests than generic CNAs
such as MITRE)
- The XSF has a history of coordinating vulnerability communication
between projects when necessary. This has been very useful in the
past, and it would help to bolster that activity.
I think it would be sensible for us to discuss this. If there is
positive consensus, I don't mind taking on the task of the application
and any necessary processes. However for the operation of a CNA
programme it would be good to have at least several trusted people
willing to work on such a team.
Further reading:
- https://www.cve.org/PartnerInformation/Partner
- https://nvd.nist.gov/general/cna-counting
Regards,
Matthew
Dear XSF members,
This email is the next step in the ongoing work on a potential EU legal
structure for the XSF.
To recap where we are: in December, the Board asked for volunteers to
investigate lightweight options for an EU presence [1]. In February,
example proposals were shared on the wiki and opened for community feedback
[2]. Many members participated in that discussion (thanks!) and five
proposals are now documented:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XSF_EU_Legal_Transition_Proposal - The proposals
cover a range of approaches, from full EU reconstitution to structural
simplification, to more lightweight options.
At today's Board meeting, we concluded that the proposals give us a good
foundation, but that we are not yet in a position to rank or narrow them
reliably. What is missing is a shared evaluation framework: without
agreeing on what matters most, any comparison risks being arbitrary.
The Board's proposed next step is therefore to define a set of evaluation
criteria first, and then use those as a yardstick to assess the proposals.
We would like your input on that list of criteria before the Board
finalises it at the next meeting on 21 May.
Below is an initial draft. We are not asking you to evaluate the proposals
yet, only to help us refine this list:
- Governance & Member Control - evaluates how decisions are made within
the organization, including the roles of members and the board and how
voting rights are allocated.
- Legal & Regulatory Complexity - considers the requirements and
processes for forming and maintaining the entity under the laws of the
chosen jurisdiction, including compliance, reporting, and language
obligations.
- IP & Asset Transfer Feasibility - looks at how easily intellectual
property, trademarks, and other assets can be transferred to or managed
within the proposed structure.
- Transition Cost & Operational Overhead - assesses estimated setup
costs, ongoing administrative responsibilities, and any additional
operational effort required to implement the structure.
- International Orientation & Reach - considers how well the structure
accommodates contributors, members, and operations across multiple
countries.
- Continuity & Long-Term Sustainability - evaluates whether the
structure can support ongoing operations smoothly during and after any
transition, including maintaining organizational stability.
- Financial Flexibility & Funding Options - examines whether the
structure allows XSF to manage finances effectively, including holding
funds, receiving donations, or engaging in grants or other funding
mechanisms.
- Flexibility for Future Changes - assesses whether the structure can
adapt to changes in membership, governance, operations, or jurisdictional
requirements without requiring a complete reorganization.
- Risk & Liability Management - looks at how the structure addresses
legal, financial, and operational risks, including liability exposure for
board members, contributors, and the organization itself.
- Alignment with Strategic Goals - evaluates how the proposed structure
supports XSF's overall mission, objectives, and long-term strategic
direction.
Specifically, we would welcome your thoughts on:
1. Are there important criteria missing from this list?
2. Are any of the listed criteria redundant or not relevant to our
situation?
3. Which criteria do you consider most important?
The Board will use the feedback from this thread at the next meeting (21
May) to agree on a final, ordered list of criteria. We will then use that
list to structure a more focused evaluation of the proposals.
Please reply to this thread by 19 May if possible, to give the Board time
to review input before the meeting.
Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts.
Kind regards,
Guus
[1]
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/members@xmpp.org/thread/UBVF332GN63…
[2]
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/members@xmpp.org/thread/5OS3L2D4EH6…
Hello,
I have created the membership application page for Q2 2026 at:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q2_2026
The following XSF members have to reapply:
* Daniel Brötzmann
* Artur Hefczyc
* Wojciech Kapcia
* Guus der Kinderen
* Mathieu Pasquet
* Mickaël Rémond
* Arc Riley
* Kevin Smith
* Andrzej Wójcik
* Nicolas Cedilnik
* Dele Olajide
* Jérôme Sautret
* Badri Sunderarajan
Regards,
Alex
Dealer Board members,
This email announces the agenda for our next Board meeting, scheduled for
Thursday, 7 May 2026, from 16:00 to 16:30 UTC. The meeting will take place
in the XSF chatroom at xmpp:xsf@muc.xmpp.org?join.
Brief context is included for each agenda item to support preparation.
*1. Welcome*Opening of the meeting.
*2. Formalize Agenda*Confirm and approve the agenda for this meeting.
*3. Action item follow-up: Keep Android Open letter*Confirm that the Chair
sent the signing email on behalf of the XSF following the vote at the March
5 meeting.
*4. XSF EU legal structure: assess proposals and next steps*Five proposals
are now documented on the wiki, covering a range of options from full EU
migration to a lightweight representative office. The mailing list
discussion has raised several overarching concerns, including transition
costs, IP transfer, and long-term sustainability. Assess whether the
discussion has matured enough to narrow the field, or whether further input
is needed before the Board can act. Wiki page:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XSF_EU_Legal_Transition_Proposal
*5. Progress report: Second XMPP Summit 2026 (online)*Follow-up on the task
assigned to SCAM at the February 19 meeting to explore format and
feasibility of a 2026 online Summit. Receive an update.
*6. Progress report: Outreach initiatives*Follow-up on the tasks assigned
at the February 19 meeting: CommTeam improving XMPP/XSF Wikipedia and
public pages, and SCAM developing a plan for attending conferences and
events. Receive brief status updates from the responsible teams.
*7. XMPP 2: Update and next steps*Prior to the April 2nd Board meeting,
Daniel Gultsch and Marvin attended IETF 125 in Shenzhen, where they report
a positive and welcoming reception to the idea of updating the XMPP core
RFC. A concrete next step has been identified: producing an initial draft
to demonstrate substance, starting with an update to RFC 6120 (core). A
side meeting at IETF 126 in Vienna is being planned to gauge broader
interest, and participation in the IETF 126 Hackathon (July 18–19, Vienna)
has been proposed as a low-barrier opportunity to raise XMPP's visibility
at the IETF. Discuss whether the Board wishes to formally acknowledge or
support these efforts, and whether any action is needed. Mailing list
thread:
https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/standards@xmpp.org/thread/7LM6LN5VN…
*8. Any Other Business (AOB)*Items not listed above that require brief
attention.
*9. Date of next meeting*Agreement on the date of the next Board meeting.
*10. Close*Closing of the meeting.
Please review the relevant materials ahead of the meeting so that we can
use our time efficiently.
Kind regards,
Guus
Dear all,
the XSF Communication Team has setup their new mail account. That allows
us to better organise as well as put aside previous limitations. Thank
you for your support here!
commteam [e t] xmpp [d ot] org
As you see we have also connected the account to the xmpp.org domain so
it looks more dedicated to the XSF organisation now.
Thank you to the iTeam and especially singpolyma here!
To make most out of it, I will just post some of the services that are
covered in the mailbox.org plan so maybe other teams can also take
advantage of the capabilities. If you see any helpful options for you in
here, please reach out.
One thing that that we could think about by the way if we want to
migrate from Google Calendar to their more privacy respecting option:
https://kb.mailbox.org/en/private/address-book-and-calendar/share-calendar-…
* 10 GB mail storage
* 25 aliases @mailbox.org
* 50 aliases @owndomains
* 5 GB Cloud Storage
* Office features
* Video conference features
* Team accounts features (address books, calendars, cloud storage)
Cheers,
Eddie
